Publications (2)2.07 Total impact
-
Article: Secondary procedures after infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms endovascular repair with second-generation endografts.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To study the incidence, the types, and the results of secondary procedures performed after endovascular treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). To compare the population of patients who underwent secondary procedure (P2) with the population of those who did not require it. Between 1998 and 2008, this study included all the patients electively treated for AAA with stentgrafts that were still available on the market on January 1, 2009. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The postoperative follow-up included at least a systematic computed tomography scan at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and then every year. P2 were defined as any additionnal procedures performed to treat aneurysm related complications after initial stentgraft implantation. We studied 162 patients with a mean 40 ± 31 months' follow-up. In 32 patients (19.7%), there were 46 P2, 3 of them were surgical conversion and 1 with endovascular conversion. Thirty-nine P2 were scheduled, and seven were performed in emergency. Nine patients underwent more than one P2. P2 was indicated for type II endoleak in 17 cases, 13 of them with a diameter increase; for type I endoleak in 10 cases; for AAA rupture in 3 cases; for occlusion or stentgraft stenosis in 13 cases; and for 1 type III endoleak, 1 endotension, and 1 femoro-femoral crossover bypass infection. Two ruptures occurred in patients who had undergone P2. The immediate technical success was 89.1%. At 30 days, morbidity was 10.9%, and there was no mortality. Survival rates at 3 and 5 years were respectively 85.2% and 71.9% in patients with secondary procedure and 70.6% and 47.5% in the others (p = 0.046). In patients treated for AAA with second generation stentgrafts, in the long term, secondary procedure rate was 19.7%. Survival rate for patients who underwent a secondary procedure was better, which was probably related to the fact that they were younger at the time of stentgraft implantation. Large AAA diameter was a secondary-procedure risk factor.Annals of Vascular Surgery 02/2012; 26(2):166-74. · 1.03 Impact Factor -
Article: Vena cava filter migration: an unappreciated complication. About four cases and review of the literature.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Inferior vena cava filter placement is performed to prevent pulmonary risk secondary to deep venous thrombosis. Indications for this treatment are limited to patients experiencing recurrences under well-managed anticoagulant treatment or presenting with contraindication to anticoagulant treatment. Nowadays, as these clinical situations are rare, this device is less and less used, all the more since, for several years now, thrombosis, fracture, or infectious complications as well as filter migration have been reported. Filter migrations are responsible for atypical and varied clinical presentations likely to defer diagnosis. To treat them, the filter is extracted, which is very risky in patients with a thromboembolic history. In our center, during a period of 14 years, we retrospectively collected and studied partial or complete vena cava filter migration cases that had been treated by extraction. We are reporting four very different clinical cases and, more specifically, the second published case of migration to a renal vein, which mimicked a systemic disease. Because of its very atypical clinical presentations, cava filter migration is an unappreciated and certainly underdiagnosed complication. However, this complication must not question cava filter placement when it is justified. In contrast, it prompts early filter extraction or long-term radiological surveillance.Annals of Vascular Surgery 11/2011; 25(8):1141.e9-14. · 1.03 Impact Factor
